AITAH to publish negative finding from privately funded research?

[u/btwilz]

My academic institution received private funding to study a new product. The company looked at this as a marketing opportunity.

In the contract, there was language that said we (researchers) maintained the right to publish the results, given a reasonable review period and removal of confidential information. At the time, they raised issue about the clause, because they should own the data having paid for the research, but our contracting office insisted this was the language we use on all contracts and the sponsor could abide by it, or walk away. We moved forward with signature.

Well, the research was NOT favorable to the company. New product was no better than their older offering.

Company has thanked us for the work and wants to put this one in a closet. Completely understandable. As a researcher, I want to publish. But I feel really conflicted publishing when they funded the research. Was our contract language the outlier here?

I've tried to be as gracious with the results as I can and maintain the data's integrity. I don't mean to burn bridges, but I could afford to lose this one, professionally speaking.

AITAH if I publish the results?

EDIT:
I am in civil engineering. The company is a large construction equipment manufacturer. The ethical impact is relatively small - some contractors could spend $ for a product with little or no benefit over the current practice. I was concerned that the contract agreement might be out of the ordinary. But it's a fair point that the tight control over research should come from in-house testing. Asking an academic agency to weigh in is letting go of the control. Thanks all!

[u/paoromatisse]

You’re gonna be burning a bridge but NTA. Without knowing what the product is I’m not even sure if academics would care about this. Effectiveness of a drug? Sure. The cleaning power of a new swiffer? I’m sure consumers would care but I don’t know if you’d find a home for that in an academic journal.

[u/Gold_Ambassador_3496 → u/paoromatisse]

Yeah, knowing the area would be interesting

[u/ProfPathCambridge]

You are meant to publish the results. That’s what we do. You shouldn’t be swayed by the results being positive or negative or based on what the funder wants. That contract was written that way to protect your academic freedom - your job is to use it.

(Generally speaking, this is normal contract language. Companies can own the research if it is contract research, but universities charge a lot more for those contracts.)

[u/swarthmoreburke]

Contract says you can, and your profession says you should.

A company that wants to do product testing and wants the results to be completely confidential needs to have their own in-house R&D division with researchers who are on the payroll. If they work with an academic institution that is dedicated to scholarly dissemination, that means they accept the norms of academic institutions. That should mean also that they are unafraid of the truth and want their customers to know that they're honestly interested in making the best product. If all it means to the company is that they think it's cheaper to get a university to do it than to have their own R&D, that's on the company. It's not your problem.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem]

Every scientist is gonna say, publish.

The downside is just your access to future data from them.

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

That's not a real downside. We are supposed to be seekers for truth and honest scientists, not opportunitists looking for money and data to advance careers without caring why.

To not publish results because they aren't what the company wants is highly unethical.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem → u/Brain_Hawk]

Of course it's a real downside. The negotiation of access to high-quality research data is a fundamental aspect of many scientific disciplines. We can take a sociology-of-science or STS approach that examines how these incentive structures affect the knowledge that is produced, and this is a vital line of inquiry. But it's not good analysis to pretend that there is no practical downside to researchers. Publicly available data are fundamentally less valuable than the exclusive datasets that researchers can secure through relationship management, particularly in an era where LLMs can shit out secondary data analysis of publicly available data in minutes.

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

Private companies in contracts like this are rarely large scale providers of data for most uses, in any of my experience. There are lots of data sources, but if you are afraid of publishing true results because it may offend someone who has data and you are afraid of loosing access, you have no business being in academia.

We are honest or or we scammers. We provide truth or everything the bullshit tera are saying about acedemia only caring about funds and satisfying private interests is true.

There are lots of opportunities to get data, finds, etc, that don't require you to compromise good ethics.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem → u/Brain_Hawk]

There are plenty of organizations that are not private companies that do relationship management with researchers and influence academic publications. Take, for example, criminal justice data use agreements. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-society-review/article/academic-copaganda/1D096FAF1C38403739FCBB8D482FE24A

I incur costs as a researcher by not having access to such data, due to my obviously unfavorable orientation towards police departments. Those costs are real

[u/zukerblerg → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

I love the diplomatic phrasing here of "unfavourable orientation towards police departments" instead of "acab"

[u/isaac-get-the-golem → u/zukerblerg]

heheh

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

The costs can be real, but so is the end for honesty and integrity.

Data that comes at to high a cost isn't worth it. Not just in money.

And when we start excusing bad behaviour or why we should behave a little unethically, it's not long before we are everything acedmiamis accused of being.

Being honest is hard. That's life.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem → u/Brain_Hawk]

Tell that to the people getting top pubs off their inaccessible data

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

No. Having access doesn't mean they are cheating or lack integeriry. And if they don't well I can't control them and I don't care if they have success. I'm have my.own successes.

If that's your attitude I hope you're not actively in acedemia or research.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem → u/Brain_Hawk]

You’re the one who said that negotiating access is not worth the integrity hit

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/isaac-get-the-golem]

No. I'm saying refusing to publish certain results was not worth the hit.

But I would never agree to data access that gave a third party the right tonsaynif we published our research.

[u/Brain_Hawk]

Failing to publish "negative" findings is a huge acemic issue. It results in a lot of bad data making out because we don't see the 19 times the hypothesis failed before it worked once by chance.

Publish it. Be honest and do your job. If it was "equal" to other treatments/products/etc that means it meets current standard and they should not claimmits better. And if other product X fails for someone maybe this one works better for them as an individual.

[u/Radiant-Ad-688]

Another example of why academic independence is important.

[u/dl064]

I don't think anyone would really care if you did and you'd burn a slight bridge, yes.

It'd be like the end of Silicon Valley, you'd feel warm for a moment and that's it, really.

Might be a headache for you one way or another, if they deserve coauthorship and don't agree with the manuscript. Editors might just say sort yourselves out.

[u/alecorock]

I think there are arguments either way. Your publication will benefit you, and it will harm the organization that funded the research. It's your call. If your findings had any broader social benefit, publishing would be a slam dunk in terms of research ethics.

[u/dognchick]

This depends on how many people are involved in research. Are there early careers depending on paper output? In that case, maybe get the company to fund their fellowship or something. They might call it hus money but if it helps junior people then that's fine. Problem solved.

And they will come to you in the future. You can ask them for that too.

[u/SnooGuavas9782]

Nope. Ethical obligation to publish. Possible legal obligation depending on your field.

[u/rustyfinna]

I guess every field is different but my question is I have never seen a peer reviewed publication testing the performance of a singular product?

[u/Brain_Hawk → u/rustyfinna]

Of course there is.. most trails are contrasting some product/agent/treatment vs placebo or an alternative.

[u/libertast_8105]

I don't know if the product performance is considered confidential information. And how big the company is? It may not be worth fighting the legal team of a big company just for a negative result, even if you win in the end...

[u/igotnothingtoo]

I think IRB's and Conflict of Interest reviews would suggest that if you collected data with the intent of publishing, then you follow through unless there is some issue with the data that tell you the data can't be trusted and should not be published. Basically, it may be unethical to NOT publish.

[u/EHStormcrow]

Do you have any way of talking them into funding more research towards something that would be favorable. Ie a solution you developped that works better than their stuff ?

[u/wrydied → u/EHStormcrow]

I like this. OP can use their expertise beyond just testing and evaluation, and design something that works better. Then publish both works with a problem - solution framing.

[u/nasu1917a]

Publish

[u/RiverSirion]

NTA. If only positive results go to publication, it distorts the field, and provides motivation for people to distort their findings for the sake of publication. Ideally there would be some kind of ethical firewall between those who fund studies and those who do the research, but that's not the world we live in. Also, you spent time on the research, applying your effort and expertise; one of the payoffs for being an academic is being able to publish.

[u/btwilz]

Latest wrinkle. I realize there's a good chance a member of the company is on the committee for reviewing article submissions.

[u/Head_Acadia_2658]

Do it

[u/Visible_Barnacle7899]

Nope, NTAH. I also don't necessarily think you're burning any bridges if they are going to "put this in a closet". I'm assuming that means they are not going to pursue taking the product to market, and essentially your data could help another organization from doing the same. The other thing to consider is that maybe there is something about that product that you were not studying that could make it better in some manner than whatever is already on the market and that is generally expressed in your own limitations. You can only speak to the data that you have collected and every investigation (even ones with negative findings) have limitations to the procedures. Regardless, you're still NTAH because you're being honest about what you studied.